Presuppositional Apologetics - The Ultimate Argument for Christianity
This is what I consider the fundamental argument against Atheism. It proves that non-christians are forced to steal from Christianity. Read to the bottom for the challenge!
If you are an Atheist reading this article, please share your thoughts in the comment section. I don’t want to attack the Atheist position and give it no chance of response, so tell me how you would respond to this, and if/where I misrepresented your position.
What do you do when that Atheist refuses to accept your scientifical proof for why the earth is 6-10 thousand years old? Spit out more scientifical facts? Why won’t he just accept the evidence? Its because he’s interpreting the evidence through his worldview glasses. Everyone has these glasses, whether they accept it or not. For example, a creationist could state the fact that soft tissue that doesn’t last more than 10,000 years old was found in dinosaur bones, who were supposed to have lived millions of years ago. While the christian will interpret it as undeniable proof of a young earth, the Atheist will immediately incorporate a rescuing device, and say that there must have been some kind of conditions that preserved the tissue for all this time.
You see, merely stating the evidence will not prove christianity. So what will? Presuppositional Apologetics. Let’s start with a definition. Presuppositions are things you assume to be true before you start reasoning, things you presuppose. An example would be the universal law of non-contradiction. When I begin formulating my argument, I presuppose that both A and non-A cannot be true at the same time. The universe cannot both be 4.6 billion years old and be 6 - 10 thousand years old. Everybody, whether they admit it or not, has these presuppositions. You can’t do anything without them. So the question becomes not whether or not you have presuppositions, but whether your worldview can account for those presuppositions. This is key in apologetics because in Presuppositional Apologetics we are not merely arguing for Christianity, we are attacking the other side, to show they can’t account for anything, they are forced to borrow from the Christian.
Now I’ve been saying that Atheists steal from christians. Let me explain what I mean.
Logic & Reason
This is the most fundamental concept that every human uses. If you can undermine this, the non-christian is helpless. Logic and Reason is what we use to construct our thoughts and arguments. But here’s the zinger: Laws of logic are universal, unchanging, and immaterial.
In atheism (materialism), everything is physical - where do non-physical laws come from? If you can’t put it under a microscope, or observe it with your senses, it doesn’t exist. But you are using and trusting logic and reason, when you can’t observe it with your senses! What is the universal, unchanging, and immaterial law of non-contradiction that says both A and non-A cannot be the same? They can’t ground logic in a materialist worldview, therefore, they cannot account for it. Christianity onthe other hand, can account for it perfectly. Logic reflects the nature of God (John 1:1 - “In the beginning was the Logos”).
You see how easy that was? We just took logic and reason and showed that the second the atheist begins using it, he is being inconsistent with his worldview. And this is barely scratching the surface.
Objective Morality
Every non-believer will bring this up in a debate. It’s the infamous question: If God is good, why is there so much evil? I cover this question more thoroughly in another post that you can check out here. But right now, we are going to focus on the fact that they cannot account for morality. When atheists say something is "wrong" (murder, theft, etc.), they're appealing to objective moral standards. But again, these standards of morality are objective, concrete, universal, and immaterial. So how can they account for some objective law that is concrete, cannot be observed with their senses, and is found in every human? They answer is: they can’t.
They are forced to admit that morality in their own worldview is subjective. So basically, if I like chocolate ice cream and you like vanilla, there is no difference. Its just a preference. If I like murder and you like giving to the poor, they are of the exact same moral worth. Hitler killing all those Jews? his ice cream flavor. Mau murdering thousands of innocent people? his ice cream flavor. Osama Bin Laden planning an attack on America that killed over 3,000 people? his ice cream flavor. All the muslims slaying christians over in Nigeria right now? their ice cream flavor. Tyler Robinson ending the life of a 31 year old father, husband, and christian? his ice cream flavor.
Except that is not how the world works. We all have consciences, Jiminy Crickets that tell us what is right and wrong. So clearly, we are not in an Atheist world. We must be in a world that can account for a concrete, transcedent, objective standard of right and wrong. But what kind of world can account for that kind of standard? The Christian one. We ground morality in God’s character. If something is immoral, it is contrary to God’s nature. If something is moral, it is similar to or in line with God’s character. So Atheism cannot account for morality, but Christianity can.
Uniformity of Nature
This one is great to use on atheists who are big about science, and then watch em’ choke on it. Uniformity of Nature is basically the law that says the Law of Gravity will be the same tomorrow as today. It states that there will be consistency in the laws of science, ie., the law of thermodynamics will always remain the same. It is essential to Science. If you undermine this - you undermine the atheist ever being able to use Science. And yet it is extremely easy to show that they cannot account for it.
According to them, the universe is random, purposeless. It just exploded into being, with no design. Something that randomly grows is not capable of producing orderly, concrete, laws. Like Uniformity of Nature. And yet these scientists expect to have the exact same law of physics tomorrow as they have today. They have no reason to believe this, because it’s impossible for the mutation to be a conscious law giver and say: “I the great mutation do solemnly declare to uphold the laws of physics for all eternity”. Therefore, they cannot account for this strange belief they have that the laws by which they do science will remain the same as they did tomorrow. Therefore, we must not be in an atheistic universe. What world are we in then? A Christian one. God promises that he will never change. And since the universe is upheld by him, the laws that he has put into effect will never change.
Yet another piece of evidence that we do not live in an atheistic world.
Human Dignity and Rights
If you ask an atheist whether slavery was right or wrong, they will say it was wrong(but they have no standard). They will say it was an abomination, it never should have been done. They will emphasize on equality, and dignity. But on their worldview, why is it “wrong” to enslave another fellow mutation of goo?(emphasis on “goo”). After all, if we choose to harm one person and not the other, it’s the same as if I choose to shoot one deer and not the other. We are just more complexly evolved animals.
In Atheism, might makes right. The strongest gets most, the weakest get the least. If we were actually consistent with an atheistic worldview, there would be no reason to preserve the old person on life support. After all, they are not being active members of society - and do not deserve our hard earned supplies.
You see, there is no basis for human worth. Everything is random and purposeless. There is no reason to treat all humans the same in their worldview.
Christianity on the other hand, accounts for this perfectly. Genesis 1:27 says we are all made in God’s image, therefore we are all equal in worth, and valuable, being made in the image of God.
Atheists are THIEVES
Throughout this atricle, we have seen that atheists cannot account for anything. We’ve seen just how preposterous the idea of no God really is.
Now we will look at some examples of Atheists who presupposed things they cannot account for.
#1 - Richard Dawkins says religion is immoral.
On his worldview, morality is subjective. So this is like him saying that mint chocolate chip ice cream is objectively better than vanilla(this actually might be true….😁). On his worldview, why should anyone care what he thinks? he can’t tell us that his preference is objectively right, and everyone else’s is false. He cannot account for this objective morality - he is stealing the standard from Christianity.
#2 - Sam Harris tries to ground morality in "well-being".
This just begs the question. Why is well-being good?. He’s saying that something is good if it promotes well-being because well-being is good. 🤔…something seems wrong there. Oh well.
You see, he cannot answer the question. He just manages to push it back another step. He cannot explain why well-being is inherently and objectively good. He can’t account for it - but the Christian can.
#3 - Scientists appeal to rationality.
Evolutionists love to say that we should be rational, and reasonable, and logical, therefore we should not accept the bible’s “outrageous” claim of miracles.
But why should we be rational or logical? what is reason and logic in an atheistic worldview? what standard is he judging miracles by to say it is irrational?
In a random universe, there is no order. He is presupposing things from a christian worldview to attack the christian. He runs over to the christian line, steals the christian’s sword, and uses it to attack him(christian) because he(atheist) has nor sword.
As christians, it is our job to point out that he has to steal our sword just to fight against us.
Objections:
Some common objections to these attacks on atheism would be these:
#1 - Logic existed before Christianity.
No, it didn’t. God is eternal, and Logic is a description of his character. Therefore, it never could have “existed before God” because
God never had a beginning
If he had, there would have been no Logic before him since Logic is just a description of his mind!
#2 - Atheists can be Moral too
This misses the whole point of the argument and can be turned against them. I never said Atheists can’t be moral. I said they can’t account for being moral, what morality is, and why you should even be moral!
Sure, Atheists can be moral - but what is morality? What is this standard by which you are judging people’s actions to see whether or not they are moral? C.S. Lewis said this: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A Man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity.
What is your straight line? You don’t have one, therefore you cannot determine a crooked line.
#3 - Morality was something that evolved
Okay let’s play this one out. Over time, an evolution in us made it to where we have a feeling(what’s a feeling? something immaterial?) that evaluates our actions. And because it helped us to survive, i.e., not murdering each other, very soon all the cavemen with the new mutation began to take over, until they all had that mutation of morality. They claim this is where morality came from, and therefore it is trustworthy.
But here’s the fatal flaw - just because it helps you to survive does not mean it’s trustworthy!
Take this example. A caveman evolves the belief that every single time he hears a crackle or a rustle in the woods, it is a saber toothed tiger trying to eat him. Therefore, every time he hears a crackle or a rustle, he runs for his life.
This could help him to survive. Say a predator is trying to get him, and he hears it rustling, so he runs for his life and is saved. That mutation rescued him from being a tiger’s breakfast. Now imagine all the cavemen develop this mutation. Now they all run for their lives whenever they hear a rustle, because they believe it is a saber toothed tiger.
But you see, this is a false belief! when the cave man hears a crackle in the woods, it is not always going to be a saber toothed tiger. And yet he runs anyway, because his mutation is false. So this is a mutation that helps him to survive, but is not trustworthy.
So what if morality is the same thing? Just because it helps us to survive does not mean its trustworthy! So you see, this example provides us with a guess at where morality comes from, but still cannot account for how we can trust it.
Conclusion
So after all this, we’ve proved that Atheism cannot account for anything. They are Presuppositional Kleptomaniacs - they cannot stop stealing from Christianity. Atheism is intellectually bankrupt, every time they use logic, morality, or science, they’re borrowing from the Christian worldview.
My message to the Atheist:
“Stop being a kleptomaniac, quit stealing from Christianity. Lay down your pride and unwillingness to believe and acknowledge the God who created you and has upheld you to this very day. You are unable to ground a single thing without God - and were it not for him, you wouldn’t even be here. If he made you, upholds you, and loves you, why not surrender to him and acknowledge his rightful ownership over you? Why not believe in Christ for salvation, and escape eternal judgement? Seek, and you will find. Ask, and it will be given. Knock, and the door will be opened unto you. There will come a day when the door to eternal life will be closed. Call upon him now, before it is too late.”.
Challenge
I have some examples for you all to work on. This is optional, but you can comment and tell me which immaterial concept these Atheists are assuming. Can’t wait to see what you come up with!
#1 - Neil Degrasse Tyson - Wonder at the Universe
What he says: “The universe is beautiful, awe-inspiring, magnificent”
“Which immaterial concept is Neil using that he cannot account for?”
#2 - Peter Singer - Animal Rights
“What he says: “Animals deserve moral consideration and rights”
“Which immaterial concept is Peter using that he cannot account for?”
#3 - Bill Maher - Free Speech
What he says: “Everyone has the right to free speech and expression”
“Which immaterial concept is Bill using that he cannot account for?”
Comment below with answers!
“The free man is not he who thinks all opinions equally true or false… The free man is he who sees the errors as clearly as he sees the truth”. - G.K Chesterton
Thanks for reading! Like, comment, and subscribe for more. Share this article with anyone who you think would like it!